self-determination plebiscites in US territories 2016

2016 is looking like the year that at least Puerto Rico is having its "self-determination plebiscite". I remember an article where the governor promised to hold the binding referendum by 2016. Guam is also up for the same vote here soon when 70% of eligible voters register to vote. Probably will happen about 2018 at current rate. The current 3 choices at both votes are statehood(which both favor currently), free association, or independence. If both or just one votes for statehood, the statehood process which hasn't been seen in over 6 decades will start again. I think this event alone will jumpstart the United North America project back to where it was about pre-9/11 levels and we can get started. We need to support them achieving statehood as much as we can, if we want a UNA. The end of 2016 is only 2 years away

I'm interested by the Guam prospects, could such a low population area get 2 senators I wonder? I will be surprised if it actually happens honestly. As for UNA, I think the unrealistic aspect of that proposition is that not enough Canadians could be convinced to give up their indepedence and swap their legislative traditions for the current constitutional status quo in America. The reason why I think this is because there are issues both from the English-Canadian and French-Canadian perspectives, that point towards significant opposition to certain consequences of hot swaping like that. I do think that these concerns will be mitigated by the coming decade of excellent growth in North America, I think the industrial core of both the USA and Canada will greatly prosper as per the explosion in shale gas production mostly, and this could generate a lot of sympathy for greater integration, even enthusiasm for full on integration, who knows.

States have been admitted to the union before with smaller populations than Guam. I think they will have to re-unite with the Northern Marianas in order to do it, but I would like all American pacific territories/free associated states to become the state of Pacifica/Micronesia. With a combined population of just under a half million, there shouldn't be any reason not to admit them (if they all agree). As for the UNA idea, I think as time goes on and countries abroad start more unions, Americans and Canadians will realize how much more beneficial it would be to be one country. Eliminating needless waste on borders/customs that drains resources that could be used to improve the lives of North Americans. Uniting would be beneficial in the long run to all North Americans

This is their mission statement, and I suspect that like you, many Americans can only envision such a union happening under these terms. However as I was saying, this is unlikely to find a lot of mainstream traction north of the Border, not because people are against Canada and America uniting, but because there are too many perceived downsides involved with simply joining the USA "as is".

'Perceived' is the key word. As American citizens, they would have as much power as the average American citizen. Canadian government is not balanced when it comes to how there are appointed senators and the like. I know a lot of Canadians (Ontario) who support statehood as it is because they are tired of unbalanced politics in Canada. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to changing the name or updating the constitution, I'm just saying the current balanced system works pretty well in the U.S. and has systems in place(not to mention an open invitation) for Canada to join anytime. Quebec itself would benefit from greater autonomy and could do more of what it wants as its own state. You might lose the Francophile wing of the military, but Quebec national guard could still be in French, as the national guard is each states own army. I would love for a UNA to happen under almost any circumstance, just saying that annexation into statehood presents the most practical option right now

I don't think PR will hold its binding referendum in 2016. They could have already had it this year, but the current governor, Alejando Padilla, is against statehood and wants an enhanced commonwealth (where basically PR has almost full independence but still gets backing from uncle Sam). Fortuno, Pierluisi, Rosello are all possible candidates from their PDP (which are pro statehood), once one of them is elected, I believe we'll have the binding and deciding referendum as soon as possible and I believe it'll be statehood or independence. I also believe the dciding factor will be 50%+1.

Regarding Guam, I haven't heard much about them having a referendum to become a state recently. I would agree that having Mariana Islands and/or American Samoa join them so that all 3 become part of a state? That would bring the population to ~260K, which would make it easier for Congress to accept as well. Maybe all Pacific territories, that would bring the population up to half a mil. Can anyone give me more info on this as I'm pretty ignorant on Guam's current statehood movement.

Something completely unrelated to these two movements, but I just saw on wiki. Apparently in recent years, some have suggested that Greenland would have been in a better financial situation today had it been acquired by the US during WWII. Can't say I disagree with them. I can't read the source links as I can't seem to find a way to translate them, but thought it was an interesting thought anyway.

Also, is there really an open invitation to Canada to join the union at any time? I have heard of this before, but I am not sure if that's really a fact. I have said before, but I think a weak canadian dollar will help start some type of integration (IMO talk and any action will only happen when we have a rate of 1.75-1 or greater). I think at that time, there will at least be some talk about Canada adopting the US dollar.

I will definitely agree with Alex that the political difference between the two countries is a major detractor for an annexation. Americans won't want to change our status quo of Congress, House, etc. Canadians would want change (maybe to a more parlimentary system, I'm not sure). Canadians won't give in, Americans won't give in. Then the political limbo that would stop a democratic annexation, happens. I'm not sure this will change anytime soon, to be honest. I would like to hear your opinion on this Alex. I mean there will have to be a little give and take, from both sides, but how much?

I'll also add that sports rivalry, national flags, and national anthems are - imo - silly, but one of the biggest, detractors. I have heard from more than one canadian how they love the hockey and rugby rivalry between US - Canada (and especially the fact that Canada wins against the US more often than not in those sports). People sing their national anthems proudly. People wear their national flag with pride (who hasn't seen the canadian maple leaf? It's even part of Air Canada). There was even a woman soccer player - Sydney Leroux - who was born in Canada to American parents that chose to play for the US. She got some huge backlash from Canadians and got booed when she played in and against Canada a year or so ago. People are very passionate about their sports and that's something that would be hard for them to let go. I have heard the same about Puerto Rico annexation (boxing, basketball, baseball) and how passionate they are about those and to wear their flag. They sing their national anthem with passion as well and the Puerto Rican flag is worn by them everywhere. Those are things that people feel are part of their culture and it will be lost if they become part of the US. It'll be "americanized". I'm not sure how those things can be overcome or even if they can. Flags should be the easiest thing to overcome as texans, and to a lesser extent Californians, wear their flag all the time. And at least Canadians already know the star spangled banner.

-MM- wrote:Something completely unrelated to these two movements, but I just saw on wiki. Apparently in recent years, some have suggested that Greenland would have been in a better financial situation today had it been acquired by the US during WWII. Can't say I disagree with them. I can't read the source links as I can't seem to find a way to translate them, but thought it was an interesting thought anyway.

Not sure that Greenland was really on the US radar post WW2. At that point, the folks in power in the US were thinking strategically (as far as territory went) in preparation of a possible WW3. It was all about potential projection of conventional forces. Canada (like Greenland) was already a US puppet in that regard.

Had the US wanted political domain over these territories at that point it would have been theirs for the taking. I doubt if the UK Parliament would have interfered if the US had offered to the Crown to relieve Britain's debt in exchange for Canada become US territory.

(And before anyone counter argues how robust Canada's economy was during the War, I will remind you all that that economic success was under-written by British debt incurred primarily to the United States.

They better counter argument is to point out that America would be Judas to backstab the Canadian people in such a way via the Crown, whilst proclaiming itself to the world to be the champions of Self-Determination.)

@bout Canada's invitation to join the United StatesTechnically Canada is not invited to the current federal United States. The formal invitation was only within the original Confederal United States, the one that was born out of the assistance of the French Monarchy. In that first constitution one of the articles clearly guaranteed membership for Canada if it wished so. Now, this pre-civil war strife confederal constitution has been aggressively demonized by humanists in your country, however should there ever be a restoration of that technically usurped constitutional order one could legitimately claim that Canada is absolutely welcomed into the family, a situation which is currently not the case at all under the second constitution unfortunately.

@bout the systemic political barriers to integrationThe parliamentary system is certainly preferred by a segment of the population here. But the main systemic hurdles I have noticed are as follows. For English-Canadians, regional maintenance of the British monarchy in some tangible and genuine form would probably be a must. For Quebec, regional soft controls over immigration would also be a major factor. Aside from these, there are issues with the perceived excesses of money politics in Washington, the impression being that money talks and the people walk in the federal politics of your country.

@bout GreenlandInterestingly, Denmark has just made an official claim to the North Pole as per their possession of Greenland, effectively boldly blind-siding both Canada and Russia when it comes to it. I doubt that they'd relinquish all of the natural resources that come with the ownership of that territory and the surrounding arctic dephts. However, perhaps Denmark could be made to join an eUSA post Canadian annexation, with Greenland eventually graduating as a full fledged state of its own lol

Yes, the U.S. did offer to buy Greenland after WW2, Denmark rebuffed it. Anyway, Greenland is about 50,000 people. Below the magic 60,000 number in the Northwest Ordinance, sure, but, given the tendency for territories to grow after becoming states, I'm not too worried about regions, like the Northern Mariana Islands, with more than 50,000 residents.

A word from this forum's 51st State specialist: Now, on to specific regions. I haven't heard much about statehood from Guam recently, or the Northern Mariana Islands. I think there have been some recent (less than 10 years ago) moves on the part of Guam, but they've got a debt problem to work out. I think the bigger political goal in Guam currently is commonwealth status. It's a bit unusual that it doesn't have it, considering that the Northern Mariana Islands do. American Samoa is an odd situation, the residents aren't even American citizens yet. I think a lot of political work would need to be done to move it anywhere near state status. There's definitely a lot of support for statehood in Puerto Rico, considerably more support for statehood than for independence (by about two orders of magnitude).

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that the only real choices are statehood or independence. Until Puerto Rico chooses one of those two, they have the Sword of Damocles dangling overhead, in the form of a complete lack of sovereignty/co-sovereignty. Namely, they hold their current status by the good graces of the U.S. Government. Traditionally (20th Century/Insular Areas period), territorial status has been viewed as "liberating", since the territorial government is not on the hook for nearly as much (as they would be if they were a state government), and since there are exceptions for such laws as minimum wage laws for the territories. However, it hamstrings you. Say that you, as a resident of Puerto Rico, supported marijuana legalization, anti-NSA/anti-NDAA, anti-Obamacare, or anti-gun control measures. If you lived in a state, you could petition to nullify federal laws. Co-sovereignty structures provide shelter to the states that enable nullification in practice, even if you don't believe in it in theory. But you live in Puerto Rico. If the territorial government tries to nullify federal laws, the U.S. congress has the power to shut down the territorial government's nullification or to even revoke home rule status as a result of it!* So, as a state, you have more power to stand up to the federal government than as a commonwealth. (Of course, you've got the minimum wage and income tax problems to sort through. My opinion, get rid of both.)

And, now, for the territory everyone seems to forget, the U.S. Virgian Islands. Last I checked, there was still an unresolved issue with their new territorial constitution, which does, in fact, contain a plebiscite provision. USVI statehood (or even commonwealthhood) probably can't get off the ground until that's resolved. At 100,000 people, though, they more than clear the 60,000 minimum of the Northwest Ordinance, plus, they don't have the issues of language holding them back.

* When I came up with the nullification argument (of pro-statehood), I conceived of the notion of territorial attempts at nullification as bring a mere hypothetical. But we're actually seeing an example of this play out right now, actually, in the form of D.C.'s attempt to legalize recreational marijuana in the District. Congress just overturned it in the omnibus spending bill. So we have front seat tickets to see how territorial nullification attempts play out.

Outside of the U.S.:Most likely regions (to request admittance) currently seem to be Quebec, the Atlantic provinces of Canada, maybe Ontario, maybe Alberta (especially if oil prices keep plummeting). Guiana and Belieze are the next most likely, but that's frankly pretty unlikely at current time. Guiana, despite its relatively strong position and its statehood movement, is probably not on the radar until a Canadian province breaks the ice, both because of distance and because of lack of development. The northern states of Mexico may also request admittance, on the grounds that their economy is more tied to the U.S. than to Mexico City. We'll have to see how oil industry liberalization plays out in Mexico.

dans wrote:Yes, the U.S. did offer to buy Greenland after WW2, Denmark rebuffed it.

I should like to see an analysis of the offer, from an historically relevant perspective considering the post-war economic situation. I would bet it was a low-ball, take-it-or-leave one time offer. Like I insinuated, why would you be willing to pay market value for something you already have de-facto control of from a strategic perspective?

Americalex wrote:The formal invitation was only within the original Confederal United States, the one that was born out of the assistance of the French Monarchy.

I feel obliged to argue against the insinuation that that the French Crown was the instigator of the victory of the Colonies over their British "benefactor". In reality, the French Crown was more than happy to allow the French economy to suffer egregious financial losses due to lost trade with America for the first seven years of the conflict (while providing only token asymmetrical aid) and couldn't bother itself to provide any substantial assistance until the Americans had the British forces pinned down and victory was already imminent.

Much like America waited and swooped in and took credit for defeating Spain in an already Rebel-control Cuba some century later...

One incontrovertible fact that American independence was achieved because of the French Monarchy is encompassed in the reality that 90%+ of the American gun powder was provided and paid for by France, it is in fact the real reason why France went bankrupt, not the lost trade with the colonies: it literally spent itself 'to death' in order to allow the american colonies to achieve victory against the British. The resulting economic collapse laid the groundwork for foreign forces fomenting the French revolution and the resulting failness which we are still harvesting the poisoned fruit of to this very day. Liberty is the produce of this crestfallen tree called humanism, and history clearly demonstrates that Liberty consistently betrays and fails those who place their short-sighted trust in it.

In the centuries since the Revolutionary War, French contributions have been criminally downplayed.

The reason this was criminally downplayed is because it wasn't long before the humanists took shit over in France and partially (with progressively increasing strength) in the USA also. By humanists I of course refer to the pedo-satanists and their irregular continental freemasonry and the various strands of socialist fagness (communism, fascism, social democracy, etc.) that defecated out of their broken and retarded minds. A house divided against itself cannot stand? The very definition of democracy is a house divided against itself! Thankfully, the French Monarchy was able to 'pass the puck' to the United States as a nation defending Freedom in the world, even today it stands as a nation still very much anchored in Judeo-Christian tradition, much to the dismay of the baffled humanists who continuously fantasize about perverting it further.

France began providing arms and ammunition as early as 1776 (the war started in 1775). In early 1777, months before Saratoga, the French sent American colonists 25,000 uniforms and pairs of boots, hundreds of cannons, and thousands of muskets -- all stuff that the colonists would've had a hard time surviving without, and all stuff they had no access to on their own. And that was just the tip of the iceberg: From supplies to advice to military reinforcements, France exercised all the fiscal restraint of a drunk businessman at a strip club when it came to funding the American war. France provided a whopping 90 percent of the rebels' gunpowder. Let that sink in for a second. Without France, the entire American Revolution would have devolved into a bunch of dudes swinging their muskets as clubs within weeks.

The only stat I could find on the percentage of gunpowder supplied was that around 90% of it came from France for the Saratoga campaign, and that that powder was legitimately purchased by the Colonies via a French company, not donated.

Most of the "military costs" France supposedly incurred during the Revolution were the cost of their Navy, of which most estimates consider only went about 12% above their peacetime budget, as they were locked into a naval arms-race with Britain regardless.

The French did run into a bit of a panic at the outset of the Conflict, however, as they had to scramble for good oak and hemp to keep their Navy afloat.

Support for the American Revolution was popular with the Royals, and the common French folks alike. France even, controversially, started allowing non-Noble Officers to fill shortages in its military during this time (a decision they likely came to regret). But they actually incurred less debt as a percentage than the other Nations involved, their antiquated financial system was simply not organized in such a manner to recover from the debt.

Fair enough, I readily concede that I was mistaken in thinking that they had actually paid for it: the use of the term provided is what had led me to consider it thus, mistakenly I now realize. Even so, the main observation totally stands: were it not for these provisions of powder from France, the colonies could not have waged let alone win their war of independence. A fact that is constantly and purposefully obfuscated by the humanist historical narrative, at the expense of the truth upon which reality is founded. It succeeds at misdirecting the attention of people, by focusing it on the military actions of that war rather than on the logistics that enabled these actions to take place, causing them to fail miserably at registering for the childishly obvious reality that without the French Monarchy America would have been dead in the egg.

Americalex wrote:Fair enough, I readily concede that I was mistaken in thinking that they had actually paid for it: the use of the term provided is what had led me to consider it thus, mistakenly I now realize. Even so, the main observation totally stands: were it not for these provisions of powder from France, the colonies could not have waged let alone win their war of independence. A fact that is constantly and purposefully obfuscated by the humanist historical narrative, at the expense of the truth upon which reality is founded. It succeeds at misdirecting the attention of people, by focusing it on the military actions of that war rather than on the logistics that enabled these actions to take place, causing them to fail miserably at registering for the childishly obvious reality that without the French Monarchy America would have been dead in the egg.

...Except that I acquired this knowledge (that the US wouldn't have won the War for Independence without France's help) in the 4th Grade while I was attending a "Humanist Indoctrination Center" (a.k.a., "grade school") provided by the Scottsdale Unified School District.

Those who fail to learn from the brutal stompings visited on them in the past are doomed to be brutally stomped in the future. ~~Raoul Duke, Christmas Eve, 1972

I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one second that I’m one of them. ~~Bayowolf, November, 2016

Based on what reasons? Lafayette and the military assistance? Or the fact that almost all of the useful gunpowder was obtained through France? Most people know little or nothing about the gunpowder provisioning reality, and that is the most telling aspect that something is purposefully amiss amidst the whole humanist narrative concerning the United States 2.0.

Americalex wrote:Based on what reasons? Lafayette and the military assistance? Or the fact that almost all of the useful gunpowder was obtained through France? Most people know little or nothing about the gunpowder provisioning reality, and that is the most telling aspect that something is purposefully amiss amidst the whole humanist narrative concerning the United States 2.0.

Yes, while researching it the other day, it turns out America only had actually one gun-powder mill in the whole of the Colonies, and they had a shortage of saltpeter to even keep that one running. In the opening few engagements of the conflict, the British confiscated over 400,000 rounds of ammunition and the powder that went with them.

I don't think the 4th and 5th grade history books in the US leave out the French element. What they do leave out, entirely, is the Spanish and Dutch help. You also don't hear anything about the Prussian support for the British cause beyond that Washington "heroically" ambushed some hung-over "Prussian Mercenaries" on Christmas morning (and they probably wouldn't have mentioned them, either, had it been possible to tell the story of that battle without doing so).

"The French Element" = The fact that they effectively provided all of the gunpowder used by Americans during the revolutionary war? All children in America learn this in grade school? That's what you are both claiming correct?

Americalex wrote:"The French Element" = The fact that they effectively provided all of the gunpowder used by Americans during the revolutionary war? All children in America learn this in grade school? That's what you are both claiming correct?

Well, I'll admit that in the 4th Grade when the "French element" was discussed, the focus was on Gilbert du Motier* (in much the same way that, in the same grade, Christopher Columbus was credited with the "discovery" of America--ignoring, of course, Leif Eriksson, St. Brendan, and the innumerable Paleo-Indians who really discovered America). Because I was stuck in a room full of retards (i.e., my fellow 4th Graders) the story told to me was simplistic. However, the story became more nuanced as I progressed through the grades to the point where, by the time I was in 7th Grade, I had heard about the gunpowder shortage.

Lest anybody thinks that France was helping the Patriots just out of the sheer kindness of their hearts, please be reminded that:

France was still totally butt-hurt about losing New France and any thing they can do to stick a thumb in Great Britain's eye they would be happy to do.

Windwalker hinted at this earlier when he said

The French did run into a bit of a panic at the outset of the Conflict, however, as they had to scramble for good oak and hemp to keep their Navy afloat.

Well, guess who had plenty of "good oak and hemp". HINT: It's the country that didn't have much gunpowder. In other words, it was to France's benefit to be friendly with the United States.

*A.k.a., the Marquis de la Fayette who, unlike his government, didn't have ulterior motives when he assisted the Patriots (and inadvertently had a couple dozen American towns named after him).

Those who fail to learn from the brutal stompings visited on them in the past are doomed to be brutally stomped in the future. ~~Raoul Duke, Christmas Eve, 1972

I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one second that I’m one of them. ~~Bayowolf, November, 2016